The truth of ‘Islamophobia’

The groups who shout ‘Islamophobia’ the loudest, are often worth examining. Because more often than not, calls raising the attention of ‘Islamophobia’, come from dubious, Islamist- leaning circles. As instead of ‘Islamophobia’ being used to raise the plight of genuinely innocent Muslims, it is commonly used as a bargaining chip to enhance Islamic victimhood and in doing so distract away from Islamism. Moreover, ‘Islamophobia’ is a useful tool for denigrating and condemning the character of Islamic critics.

Islamist front groups in Canada and the West have dragged the media and the political “elites” into their extremist messaging. Rather than learning about why extremism and terrorism come out of their religion, Islamists instead concentrate on preventing the victims of their violence from speaking out. They do this by shouting “Islamophobia” at every opportunity, and do so most loudly at modernist or secular Muslims.

The Parliament of Canada, for example, passed an “anti-Islamophobia” motion on October 26, 2016. Samer Majzoub, the president of the Canadian Muslim Forum, was the person behind the Parliamentary petition against “Islamophobia”; it generated some 70,000 signatures. The sponsor of the motion in the House of Commons was MP Frank Baylis.

Both Majzoub and the Canadian Muslim Forum have a rather long list of dubious connections to Islamist groups and the foreign money used to support them. This includes the Muslim Brotherhood.

What is the real intent of Samir Majzoub, the Canadian Muslim Forum and its exploitation of the over-hyped concept of “Islamophobia”? As noted, Islamists, including Majzoub, have a long history of dragging prominent people and organizations into their arguments about extremism, terrorism and radicalization. These Islamists do not use their influence to drain the resources of Islamic terrorism in Canada and elsewhere, nor do they seek to stop young Canadians from joining ISIS. They did not stop suicide bombers in Canada such as Aaron Driver or Calgary-based Salma Ashrafi, who became a suicide bomber in Iraq. They do not use their knowledge or money to dismantle the infrastructure of extremism, nor do they attempt to dismantle the historical and religious arguments in favor of terrorism. Rather than do any of this, they instead make it their priority to intimidate, harass or sue those who speak out against Islamist extremism and its accompanying terrorism.

Why should life be dangerous for Muslims, their families and others who reject the charges of Islamophobia?

The prevailing religious interpretation of groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and its adherents is that anyone who objects to their interpretation of Islam is to be considered a disbeliever. Because of their disbelief, they deserve to be killed in the present life and should then suffer the punishment of Allah in the next life. If killing them in this life is not an option, then spreading hate and anger against them is acceptable.

The side effects of the supposed “Islamophobia” activity is an increased threat to Muslim families in Canada and the USA. Modernist and secular Muslims are afraid to speak out against extremism, for fear of being labelled as traitors to their own community. They also fear for their businesses and their children, who may come under verbal and physical attack. Because of petitions and Parliamentary actions such as those in Canada, modernist and secular Muslims and their families are forced either to agree with the false precepts of “Islamophobia” as advanced by extremist front groups, or to disagree with them but remain silent. Unfortunately, disagreeing with the Muslim Brotherhood and its front groups can be dangerous and even fatal.

The other main problem with the Parliamentary action against “Islamophobia” is that it gives the false impression that groups such as the Canadian Muslim Forum or the Muslim Brotherhood can speak for Muslims. In fact, they do not. Groups such as the Canadian Muslim Forum or the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) have little evidence to show they have anything approaching majority support. In the UK, it was recently revealed that only about 2% of UK Muslims feel that the Muslim Council of Britain represents them. Moreover, CAIR, despite its claims of moderation, was declared to be a terrorist entity by the United Arab Emirates.

With no mandate to speak on behalf of Muslims, Islamists such as Majzoub should not be regarded as “leadership” figures. They intimidate other Muslims and work to silence anyone who speaks against them. This is a sort of intellectual fraud: no one elected them to speak on behalf of Muslims. From an Islamic religious perspective, it should be noted that Allah has no agents or representatives on Earth, so their claim to speak on behalf of Muslims is theologically weak, at best.

In Canada, Islamist-run schools use extremist literature from the Middle East to teach their children. It is not just that they have extremist literature in Canadian schools and mosques; it is that in some cases they have nothing but extremist literature. It is also not just Islamist-run schools and mosques that are the problem. The Ottawa Public Library, for instance, has nothing but extremist literature in its Arabic language collection.

Conclusions

The Parliamentary motion condemns all forms of “Islamophobia,” without making any attempt to define what that means. As Judith Bergman put it:

The questions need to be asked: What exactly are they condemning? Criticism of Islam? Criticism of Muslims? Debating Mohammed? Depicting Mohammed? Discussing whether ISIS is a true manifestation of Islam? Is any Canadian who now writes critically of Islam or disagrees with the petitioners that ISIS “does not reflect in any way the values or the teachings of the religion of Islam now to be considered an “Islamophobe”?

The Canadian Parliamentary motion on “Islamophobia” is indeed a large stick that is designed to be swung at anyone who makes even the vaguest criticism of extremist Islam and its front groups. Rather than draining the extremist swamp or defunding their centers of activity, motions such as this are intended to weaponize words so that critics can be silenced by criminalizing anything that varies from political correctness, as in the clearly politically-motivated conviction of Dutch MP Geert Wilders last week.

The first victims of this will be secular and modernist Muslims who oppose extremism — and their families.